# CRC Report: E-87-1

MID-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS CA T A L Y ST DURABILITY STUDY SCREENING

June 2009

COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCIL, INC. 3650 MANSELL ROAD · SUITE 1 4 0 · ALPHARETT A , GA 30022

### The Coord i nating Research Cou n cil, Inc. (CRC) is a non-profit corporation supported by the petr oleum and automotive equipment industries. CRC ope r ates thro ugh the committees made up of technical experts from industr y and gover n ment w h o voluntarily participate. The four main areas of resea rch w i thin CRC are : a i r pollution (atmospheric and eng i n eering studies); aviation fuels, lubricants, and equipment perfor mance, heavy-duty vehicle fuels, lubricants, and equipm ent perfo r mance (e. g ., diesel trucks ); an d light-duty vehicle fuels, lubric ants, and e quipment performance (e.g., passenger cars). CRC’s fun c ti on is to provide the mechanism for jo int re search con ducted by t h e tw o industries that w ill help in determinin g the optimum comb inat ion of petroleum products and automotive equipment. CRC’s work is limited to research that is mutually beneficial to the tw o industries involved, and all information is available to the public.

CRC makes no w a rra nty expressed or implied on the a pplication of informa t ion contained in this repor t. In formu l ating and approving reports, the appropriate committee of the Coordinating Research Council, Inc. has not investigated or considered patents w h ich may apply to th e subject matte r. P r ospectiv e users of th e report are responsible for pro t ecting th emselv es against liability for infringement of patents.

## CRC Project No. E-87-1
Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Catalyst Durability Study Screening

Prepared by: Transportation Research Center Inc.
10820 State Route 347 East Liberty, OH 43319

Final Report

July 2009

Prepared fo r: Coordinating Research Council, Inc.
3650 Mansell Road
Suite 140 Alpharetta, GA 30022

### Table of Contents

List of Tables No. P a g e 1 Target Prog ram Vehicle List a nd Actual Vehicle Inform ation 9 2 E-87-1 Averages Test Fu els Analys is Results 11 3 E-87-1 Fuel Blending Laboratory T e st Fuels Analysis Results 12 4 E-87-1 Detailed Test Fuels H ydrocarbon Analysis Results 12 5 E-87-1 Fuel Change Procedure 13 6 Co m posite FTP Em issions Results 14 7 Vehicle Service Detail 15 8 Vehicle Therm o couple Locations 18 9 CRC E-87-1 EPEFE Sulfur Purge Cycle Procedure 21 10 CRC E-87-1 Fuel Test Matrix 22 11 Long Term Fuel Trim s 26 12 Assessm ent of Long Term Fuel Trim (LTF) Usage in Open Loop Control 29 13 CRC E-87-1 LFT Identification Criteria 30 14 CRC E-87-1 Average Lambda E20 Rank Order Results 31 15 CRC E-87-1 Power-to-Weight Ratio Rank Order Results 32 16 CRC E-87-1 Vehicle Registration Rank Oder Results 33 17 CRC E-87-1 Average E20 Catalyst Inle t Tem p erature Rank Order Results 34 18 CRC E-87-1 Delta Lam b da E0-E20 Rank Order Results 35 19 CRC E-87-1 Delta Inlet Catalyst Temperat ure Lam b da E20- E0 Rank Order Results 36 20 CRC E-87-1 Final Rank Order Results 37

List of Figures 1 Vehicle Test Sequence for E-87-1 as provided by CRC 8 2 2006 Chevrolet Silverado (CRC #15 ) Lam bda Chart 24 3 2002 Nissan Frontier (C RC #6) La mbda Chart 25 4 Distribution of Long Term Fuel Trims 27 5 Hyundai Accent Em issions Results Taken From the Orbital study 39

List of Photographs 1 Instrum e ntation Installation 2007 Ford Focus (CRC #17) 16 2 Instrum e ntation Installation 2003 Ford Taurus (C RC #19) 16 3 Instrum e ntation Installation 2003 Ford Focus (CRC #19) 17 4 Instrum e ntation Installation 2003 Nissan Altim a (CRC #5) 17

### E-87-1: Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Catalyst D u rability S t udy Screening

EXE CUTI V E SUMM ARY
The goal of the Coordinating Research Coun cil (CRC) E-87-1 Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Catalys t Durability Sc re ening Study was to ide n tif y vehicles which used learn e d f u el tr im s to correct open loop air-fuel ratios.
The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) E- 87-1 Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Catalyst Durability Screening Study is the first phase of a two pha se program to develop data on the durability effects of m i d-level eth a n o l blends o n em ission contro l system s. The second phase consists of aging vehicles identified during this s c reen ing stu d y to f u ll us ef ul lif e with m i d-leve l ethanol blends to determine the i r du r a bility ef f

ects.

Procedure

For this screening s t ud y TRC Inc. identified a nd acquired a fleet of 25 te st vehicles based on criteria provided by the CRC. The target vehicl e fleet consisted of m o d e ls suggested by the US Departm e nt of Energy Nationa l Laboratories and by autom a kers . Twelve of the m odels represented high production vehicles m a nufactured since 2000. The thirteen rem a ining vehicles were identified as being unlikely to use adap ted fuel trim and m a nu factured since 1990.
Each test vehicle was screened prior to accepta n ce into the program using a standard exhaust

em issions FTP. None of the selected vehicl es exceed ed their full useful life em issions certification standard s by m o re than 20% and each was accepted into the program . The vehicles were instrum e nted with a wide range uni versal exhaust gas oxygen (UEGO) sensor, therm o couples, and an Engine Control Module (ECM) data link. The wi de range oxygen sensor was installed upstream of the fr ont catalyst while the therm o coupl es were located upstream an d downstream of the front catalyst and at the factory installed oxygen sensor.
Following instrum e ntation, each v e hicle perform e d a m a trix of four tests us ing fu els with four different ethanol levels. The test was a mo di fied version of the European Programm e for Em ission, Fuels, and Engine Techno logies (EPEFE) Sulfur Purge Cycle 1 

### . The ethan o l conten t levels of the test fuels were 0%, 10%, 15%, a nd 20% by v o lum e . The fuels were designated E0, E10, E15, and E20 respectively. T h e in itial EPEFE test was perf orm e d using E0 fuel while the test o r der fo r the rem a ining three fuels was rando m i zed for each vehicle.
The test cyc l e consis ts o f two complete itera tions of a vehicle warm -up phase followed by five

success i ve wide-open throttle (W OT) accelerati ons from 0 to 84 m p h each. Each WOT is separated by a brief cruise and idle period. Each EPEFE test inc l u d es a tota l of ten WOT

1 F. Pal m er et . al ., 1 9 9 5 , “ O ut c o m e of t h e E u r o pea n Pr o g ram m e on Em i ssi o n s, Fuel s , a n d En gi ne Te ch n o l o gi es (EPE FE),” S A E SP 1042



### 1

### acceleration s . During each EPEFE test, th e UEGO, therm o couples, and ECM data were continuously recorded for post-test analysis. UEGO and therm o couple data were recorded at 10Hz while ECM data were collected at the m a ximu m output rate of each test veh i cle. TRC Inc. collected all available E C M data ch annels for e ach vehicle. These data ranged from 13 to 36 channels for the vehicle in the program . One t e st vehicle was not equipped with a Data Link Connector (DLC) and no EC M data were reco rd ed.
Vehicle speed, oxygen sensor air-fuel-ratio (AFR), and catalyst tem p erature data from the tenth WOT event for each vehicle and fuel com b ination were analyzed to d e term ine which vehicles used adaptive fuel trim s during open loop control.

Results
Twenty-five vehicles w e re ev aluated as to whet her they ad justed their fueling with increased ethanol content to m a intain a cons istent f u el:a ir e quivalen ce r a tio (f uel:a ir a c tual / f u el:a ir stoichiom e tric) in open loop control. The assessm ent method for this study was the sam e as that used in the recently published Departm e nt of Energy screening test program : “ Effects of Interm ediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Sm a ll Non-Road Engines, Report 1 – Updated “ 2



### . Thirteen of the twenty -five vehicl es did not adjust open loop fueling to co m p ensate f o r ethanol in the fuel. Eight of the twenty-five vehicles did adjust open loop fueling to co m p ensate for ethanol in the f u el. Four of the twenty-f ive v e hicles gave unclea r resu lts.
The thirteen vehicles (and poten tially the four that could not be analyzed or gave am biguous results) that do not adjust for et hanol in open loop control are likel y to have their fuel enrichm e nt operation compro m i sed when operated on m i d-level ethanol blends. As was docu m ented in the Australian ethanol durability study 3 

### , this can lead to catalys t perform a nce degradation an d incre a sed ha rmf u l exhaust em issions. In additio n, the durability of the engine and other system s
m a y also be com p ro m i s e d. It is notable that one of the vehicles exam ined, the 2001 Hyundai Accent, demonstrated the sam e control behav i or as a sim i lar 2001 Hyundai Accent tested in Australia. During further durab ility testing in A u st ralia, the 2001 Hyundai dem onstrated catalyst perform a nce degradation and an inab ility to m eet the em issions standard after 50,000 m ile aging

on a m i d-level ethanol blend.

2 N R EL/TP-54 0 -4 354 3, O R N L /TM-2 008 /1 17 , “Eff ects of In term ed iate Eth a no l Blend s on Le gacy Ve hicles and Sm al l Non

- Ro ad E n gi nes, Re po rt 1 – Up dat e d,” Feb r uary 20 0 9 , h ttp ://feerc.o r nl.g ov /pub licatio n s / I n t

_ b l en ds_ R p t 1

_ Up d a ted

. p d f

3 O r b ital Eng i ne Co m p an y, “Mark e t Barriers to t h e U p tak e of Biofu e ls Stu d y , A Testing Based A ssessmen t to Determ ine Im pacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoli ne Fuel Blen d on t h e A u st ral i a n Pa ssen g e r Vehi cl e Fl eet Repo rt t o En vi ro nm ent Aust ral i a ,” M a rch 2 0 03



### 2

### The twenty -five vehicles were ranked by six criteria deve loped jointly by C RC and US Departm e nt of Energy National Laboratories. Th is ranking was developed to identify vehicles for further testing in phase 2 of this program
, aging to f u ll usef ul lif e with m i d-level eth a nol blends to d e term ine their durability ef f

ects.
The vehicles identified for further study are:

1. 2002 Nissan Frontier (4cyl) 2. 2000 Ford Focus 3. 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 4. 2001 Hyundai Accent 5. 2001 Mazda 626 (4cyl) 6. 2000 Honda Accord LX (4cyl) 7. 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 8. 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 9. 2003 Nissan Altim a (4cyl) 10. 2006 Nissan Quest

3

### INTRODUCTION

At both th e federal and state levels , there has recen tly b e en legislation that m a ndates and / or encourages the use of alternat ive f u els, including ethanol. The Energy Independence and Security Act, passed in Decem ber 2007, m a ndates 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels usage by 2022. On-going and planned increas es in ethanol production have m a de it likely that the supply of

ethanol will exc eed that r e quir e d f o r natio nwide 10% blending with gasoline. Althou gh further production increases coul d expand the pool of E85 availa ble, slow progress on installing E85 infrastructure has produced concerns that an ethanol “glut” could deve lop. In Minnesota, a law requires the use of E20, a blend of ga soline with 20% denatured ethanol by 2013. The Assistan t Secretary of E n ergy fo r renewable en ergy called th e use of E15 and E20 an “alternative approach to balance fuel production and use” 4 

### . One im portant aspect o f E20 fuel usage is the durability of legacy and curren t prod uction veh i c l es th at wer e not des i gn ed f o r its u s e. Studie s in Austra lia 5 

### have show n that the use of E20 can cau se catalyst dam a ge to som e vehicles. Because no technical pu blications addresses US vehicle exh a ust sys t em durability with E10 – E20 fuels, CRC was m o t i vated to conduct this test program

.

The use of m i d-level ethanol blends such as E 20 results in a lean com bustion m i xture that will cause elevated oxygen concentrations in the exhaust gas im pacting the oxygen sensor and
cata l yst. Le an com bustion will a l so result in e l evated in-cy linde r engin e , oxygen s e nsor, and catalyst temperatu r es. Modern clo s ed loop e ngine control system s will prev ent this from occurring by adjusti ng th e fuel flow to ensure sto i chiom e tric operation. H o wever, m o st vehicles use switching type oxygen sensors and are in open loop control during periods of co mm anded enrichm e nt such as h e avy thro ttle o p eration. Th is is when the com bustion m i xture is enriched to cool the exhaust gases and thus the engine, catalyst and oxygen se nsor. This is called “power enrichm e nt”, “engine protection m ode”, or “catalyst protection m o d e”, depending on the imm e diate purpose. As was s een in the Australian studies 6 

### , so m e vehicles do not use the learned fuel com pos ition, adapted fuel trim , when calcula ting the am ount of fuel required to operate in these m odes. W h en the fuel contain s eth a nol, th e use of a baseline (unlear ned ) f u el tr im results in open loo p operation that is le ane r than an tic ip ated. This enleanm e nt is propo rtional to the

4 Testim ony of Ale x a nde r Karsne r Assist ant Secretary for Energy Efficie n cy and Re ne wa bl e Ene r gy , Befo re t h e Committee on Energy a n d Na tural Res o urce s, United States Sen a t e . T o pi c : Im provi ng t h e Nat i o n' s Ren e wabl e Fuel s In frast ruct ure, Ju ly 31 , 200 7

5 O r b ital Eng i ne Co m p an y, “Mark e t Barriers to t h e U p ta ke o f Bi o f uel s St udy Test i n g G a sol i n e C ont ai ni n g 20 % Eth a no l (E20),” Ph ase 2 B Final Rep o rt to the D e p a rtm e n t o f th e Env i ro nmen t an d H e ritag e , May 20 04.

6 O r b ital Eng i ne Co m p an y, “Mark e t Barriers to t h e U p tak e of Biofu e ls Stu d y , A Testing Based A ssessmen t to Det e rm i n e Im pact s of a 20 % Et han o l Gasol i ne F u el Bl en d on t h e A u st ral i a n Pa ssenge r Vehicle Fleet Repo rt t o En vi ro nm ent Aust r a l i a M a rch 20 0 3



### 4

### fuel’s ethanol content so ethanol blends greater than E10 are m o re likely to cause dam a ge. Sixty percen t of th e vehicles tested in Australia d i d not use an adap ted fuel trim (one that co mpensated for the ethanol) during open loop cont rol and all of these vehicles showed so m e level of catalyst perform a nce deterioration after 50,000 m iles of operation on E20.

A reduction in oxygen sensor or catalyst perform a nce across larg e portions of the in-use flee t could have m a jor i m plications for air quality. However, it was not known whether the sam e calib ration s t ra tegie s ar e used in U S vehicles and whether
, if used, th ey will h a v e the s a m e effect.

TEST BACKGROUND

There are two options for controlling the am o unt of fuel injected during open loop operation. Open loop operation is when ther e is no inform ation fro m the oxygen sensor that enables the
cont rol l e r t o use real t i me dat a t o cal cul a t e t h e act ual ai r-fuel rati o, thus t h e control l er has no feedback and m u st control usi ng pre-programm e d param e ters.

The first option is to use only th e p r e-programmed fuel valu es for th e calculation of the air fuel ratio. These values contain no corrections for th e actual build and aging of the particular vehicle being used nor f o r any varia tion in the f u el pro p er ties and will be the s a m e value for all veh i cles with a given calibratio n . The advantage is th at poten tia l error s f r om various sensors are not included in a calcu latio n whose accur acy is critical for th e p r otec tion of both the engine and the catalyst. T h is includes any chang e s in s e nso r accu racy when operating in the potentially different engine operating conditi ons characteristic of ' c losed loop' and ' o pen loop' operation.

The second option is to calculate th e air fuel ratio using the long term fu el trim that is frequently calculated and stored by the engine controller w h ile in closed loop operation. The long term fuel trim corrects for variation fro m a range of sources including fuel oxygen content and helps ensure that the air and fu el volum es are exactly matched to m i nim i ze harmful exhaust em issions. The advantage of using the long term fuel trim during open loop control is that the vehicle to vehicle and part to part variation is accounted for in the air fuel rati o. In other words the air fuel equivalence ratio under a given se t of conditions should be the sam e for all vehicles with a given set of software and calibra tion regardless of any part or fuel variations.

It is im possible to gath er the details of the ca libration for the thousands of types and model years of vehicles on US roads. The best way to dete rm ine wheth e r a vehicle uses long term fuel trim during open loop operati on is through experim e ntation. On e way to run the experim e nt, a way particula r ly relev a nt to the et hanol blend question, is to redu ce the h e ating value of the fuel, typically by increasing the oxygen content by adding ethanol. Observations of the air-fuel ratios

5

### in open loop control can be done by installin g a wide range oxygen sens or and operating the vehicle at w i de open throttle (W OT) with fuels of various compositions after a suitable exposure of the vehicle to the fuel that enables the vehicl e to “learn” the fuel (develop new long term fuel trim s that ta ke the new f u el into a c c o unt). A vehicle which adapts (by u s ing the lon g term f

u el trim s in calc u lating air f u el ra tios ) to the f u el co mposition will us e the s a m e air f u el equivalence ratio under the sam e conditions regardless of the fu el com position. A veh i cl e that do es not adap t will hav e th e air fuel ratio becom e progress i vely leaner as more ethanol (oxygen) is added to th e fuel. W h en the air fuel ratio is norm a lized and expressed as a lam bda (t he act u al air

- f uel r a ti o divided by the stoichiom e tric air f u el ratio) the oxygen content can be found by looking at the change in lambda. For exam ple, a vehicle with a lam bda o f 0.80 on straight gasoline would have a lam bda of 0.837 on E10 and 0.874 on E20 reflec ting the 3.7% oxygen content in E10 and 7.4% oxygen content in E20.

Based on th e experience in Australia, the d ecis i on as to which of the two approaches to use in determ ining the am ount of fuel injected during ope n loop engine control is critical. All of the vehicles in the Orbital study that did not use long term fuel trim s to determ ine the o p en loop air fuel ratio exhibited increases of over 100% in the em issions of hydr ocarbons, carbon m onoxide
, and nitrog en oxides after 80,000 km durability tes ting us ing the European cataly s t durability test cycle. Conversely none of the vehicles tested th at used long term fuel trim s for calculating open loop control exhibited a si gnificant deterioration.

TEST PRO G RAM

Approach

There are thousands of d i fferent m a k e s and m ode ls of vehicle on the US road and it is i m possible to perf orm durability tes t s on all of them . The approach tak e n in th is in vestig ation was to brea k the tes t pro g ram into two phases. The f i rst was to determ ine by experim e ntation if the calibration strategies found to be responsible for the Australia n catalyst deterioration were present in the US m a rket (the sc reening test). The s econd phase is to perfor m durability testing on a selection of vehicles (if any) found to use the calibration strategy of interest to determ ine if this s t ra tegy will ind eed r e sult in em issions perf or m a nce degradation of US vehicles.

The plan f o r phase two (durability te sting) of the test progra m is to rank the vehicle s in the test fleet by six criteria jointly developed by C RC and US Departm e nt of Ener gy National Laboratories. The vehicles with the highest p ooled rankings will then be selected for th e durability p o rtion of th e test program to determin e if th ere is any effect of long term m i d-level ethanol usage on catalyst perform a nc e.

6

### Vehicles

A balanced approach was chosen to develop the sc reening fleet. Twelve of the 25 vehicles were selected by US Departm e nt of En ergy Nation al Labo rato ries base d on volum es sales and

m a nu facturer distribution. Thirteen of th e 25 vehicles w e re selected by the CRC m e m b er autom a kers as being likely to use the calibration strategy found in Australia. Two of the vehicles selected by CRC were not m a nufa c tured by the CRC m e mber automakers, but were selected based on data available in the literatu re. The H yundai Accent was selected because it is a vehicle that displayed catalyst perform a n ce degradation on E20 in Australia th at is also av ailab l e in th e US. The BM W 330 was selected based on inte rnal CRC m e mber company data. W ith one exception, all th e screen ed vehicles were les s th an 9 years o l d at the beginning of the program and were younger than the m e dian age of the US car fleet.

Plots of the test data are presented in the repor t’s appendix. The raw da ta are available in MS Excel form a t from the Coordi nating Research Council (CRC).

Procedure
The test p r o cedure us ed here is essen tia lly th e sam e as used by the US Departm e nt of Energy in its recen tly published screening test program : “ Effects of Interm ediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Sm all Non-Road Engines, Report 1 – Updated “ 7 

### . The description of the test procedure of the Catalyst Du rability Study Screening Program will highlight th e following topics:

• Vehicle test sequence

• Step 1: Vehicle selection and procurem ent

• Step 2: Vehicle preconditioning a nd test fuels and specifications

• Step 3: FTP em issions testing and vehicle repair

• Step 4: Vehicle and labo ratory ins t ru m e ntation

• Step 5: EPEFE Sulfur Purge Cycle test m a trix

• Data Collec t ed and Analysis

Vehicle Test Sequence – The vehicle test sequence for this program wa s provided by CRC an d is includ ed as Figure 1. Each step of the seven- step sequen ce is discuss e d in detail within thi s report.

7 N R EL/TP-5 40- 435 43 , O R N L /TM- 20 08 /117 , “Eff ects of I n t e r m ed iate Eth a n o l Blen d s on Leg acy V e h i cl es and Sm al l Non

- Ro ad E n gi nes, Re po rt 1 – Up dat e d,” Feb r uary 20 0 9 , h ttp ://feerc.o r nl.g ov /pub licatio n s / I n t

_ b l en ds_ R p t 1

_ Up d a ted

. p d f



### 7

### 1. Procure ve hicle (after visual inspection to verif y emissions co mponents)

2. Fill and pr ep vehicle with E0 using C RC fuel change procedure

3. Run FTP emissions test on E0



### Step 1: Vehicle selection and procurement – The test fleet com position was based on the following guidelines:

• 13 vehicles suggested by autom a kers as bei ng unlikely to use adapted fuel trim and being built s i nce 1 990

• 12 vehicles suggested by the DOE as repres enting high production vehicles built since 2000

The 25-vehicle list is in cluded as T a ble 1 in this report. Table 1 also d e tails the model year an d incom i ng odom e ter reading for each ve hicle procured for the program

. New exhaust sy stem 

### Pass No

Yes

4. Instrum e nt vehicles with A/F sensors, therm o couples, and ECM Data Link

5. Record data during m odified EPEFE sulfur purge c y cle procedur e

6. Fill with ra ndom ly -selected ethanol bl end and prep using CRC fuel change procedure Figure 1. Vehicle Test S e quence for E-87-1 as provided by CRC

7. Repeat steps 5 and 6 until all fuels are co m p leted



### 8

### Table 1 Target Program Vehicle Lis t and Actual Vehicle Inform ation

CRC # Manufacturer Model Year(s) Brand / Model En gi ne/ Transm ission Act u al Mo d e l Year Selected Act u al Odom eter At D e liv ery 1 GM 20 0 1

- 0 3 Chev rol e t T r ac ker 2. 0L A u t o 4 x 4 20 0 1 11 5, 2 23 2 G M 20 0 1 Chev rol e t M e t r o 1. 3 L A u t o 20 0 1 81 ,7 9 0 3 F o rd 1 999 Cr ow n V i ctor i a 4

. 6 L Au to 1 999 7 3 ,057 4 C h r y sl e r 20 0 1 P T Cr ui s e r 2. 4 L A u t o 20 0 1 76 ,6 3 7

5 N i s s a n 20 0 3 Al t i m a QR2 5 I- 4 2. 5L A u t o 2 003 8 5 ,396

6 N i ssan 2 002 Fr on tier Tru c k KA 2 4 I

- 4 2. 4L A u t o 2 002 7 0 ,210 7 H y u n d a i 2 0 0 1 A c c e n t 1. 5L Auto 2001 79,382 8 B M W 20 0 4 33 0i 3. 0 L A u t o 20 0 4 38 ,7 2 2 9 M i t s ubi shi 19 9 9

- 2 00 1 M i r a g e 1. 5 L A u t o 19 9 9 11 3, 2 0 4 10 M i t s ubi shi 20 0 1 M ont er o Sp o r t 3. 5L 4 W D A u t o 20 0 1 85 ,8 7 1 11 Ho n d a 19 9 2

- 9 5 Ci vi c D X , LX 1. 5L A u t o 19 9 5 16 5, 4 55 12 Chry sl er 20 0 7 Jeep R ubi c on 3. 8L 4 W D A u t o 20 0 7 5, 31 2 1 3 V W 20 0 0

- 0 3 Jet t a 1. 8L T u rb o A u t o 20 0 3 88 ,0 2 5

1 4 G M 20 0 6 Ch evro let C o balt 4 d o o r 2. 2L e n gi ne A u t o 2 006 1 2 ,423

1 5 G M 20 0 6 Chevrolet Sil v erado Ext e nde d Ca b 5. 3L e n gi ne Not FF V Aut o 20 0 6 41 ,6 1 3

1 6 G M 20 0 2 Ch evro let Subu rb an 4W D 5. 3L e n gi ne Not FF V Aut o 20 0 2 83 ,0 3 6

1 7 F o r d 20 0 7 Foc u s Fede ral Bi n 4 Foc u s 2

. 0 L Au to 2 007 1 9 ,988 1 8 F o rd 2 000 Fo cu s SPI , 2

. 0 L , Au to 2 000 9 3 ,755

1 9 F o r d 20 0 3 Taur u s 3. 0L 2 val v e

n o t FFV A u t o 2 003 5 1 ,366



### 9

### Table 1 Target Program Vehicle List and Actual Vehicle Inform ation, Continued.

CRC # Manufacturer Model Year(s) Brand / Model En gi ne/ Transm ission Act u al Mo d e l Year Selected Act u al Odom eter At D e liv ery 20 Chry sl er 20 0 1

- 0 2 Do d g e Du ra ng o 4 W D 4. 7L A u t o 20 0 2 75 ,1 9 1 2 1 T o y o t a 20 0 0

- 0 2 Si e n n a 3. 0 L A u t o 20 0 0 81 ,8 8 0 2 2 H ond a 2 000 A ccord LX 2

. 3 L Au to 2 000 9 7 ,291 2 3 N i s s a n 20 0 6 Quest 3. 5 L A u t o 20 0 6 35 ,6 4 4 2 4 VW 2 000 -01 Jetta 2

. 0 L , Au to, f e der a l 2 001 7 1 ,927 25 M azda 20 0 0

- 0 1 62 6 2. 0L 1 6 v Aut o 20 0 1 75 ,2 5 3



### The following steps were taken to ensure each vehicle selected was correct and appropriate fo r this prog ram

.

• Each of the 25 vehicles was inspected prior to purchase to verify all em issions control

com ponents were in p l ace and co nnected. A ny vehicles with p e nding or existing Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTC ) were repaired by the se ller prior to purchase an d delivery.

• A ma x i mu m / mi n i mu m o d o m e t e r r a ng e g u i d e l i n e was established for each vehicle based on the m o del years s e lected by th e comm ittee. Vehicles which had accum u lated between 7,500 and 15,000 odom eter m iles per year since m a nu facture were selected. This odom e t er range was selected to assist with vehicle identific ation and location of any m a tching vehicles required for the then propo sed f u ture work related to this pro j ec t.

23 of the 25 vehicles selected for the test p r o g r a m fe l l w i t h in t h e ma x i mu m/ mi n i mu m o d o me t e r range guideline. The 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt (CRC #14) and 2007 Jeep Rubicon (CRC #12) selec t ed f o r use in the p r ogram were sligh tly be low the m i nim u m mileage guide line targ et bu t were accepted as valid vehicles for the study. Their odom eter m il eages were determ ined to be close enough to typical that fi nding m a tching vehicles for any future work would be possible.

The 25 tes t vehicles for this p r ogram were procured and delivered to TRC Inc.’s East Libe rty, Ohio facility between April 3, 20 08 and June 26, 2008. Each veh i cle receiv e d an incom i ng technical inspection to verify it was m echani cally sound for chassis dynamo m e ter operation. At that tim e only m i nor repairs were m a de to the vehicle exh a ust systems pr ior to th e initial FT P

em issions test. The intent of the m i ni m a l re pairs was to m i ni m i ze a ny repair expenses for vehicles tha t could poten tia lly f a il the screen i ng process and not enter the actual test program

.

10

### Step 2: Vehicle preconditioning a nd test fuels and specifications – Test fuels for this prog ram were provided by CRC. The test fuels provided by CRC for the E-87-1 program are detailed in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Table 2 contains the averag ed analys is results from four laboratories using
standardized ASTM test m e thods. Table 3 contains the analysis results fr o m the fuel blending laboratory. Table 4 contains the detailed hydrocarbon anal ysis results obtained by gas
chrom a tography. Table 2 E-87-1 Test Fuels: General Analysis Results (Average of Four Laboratories)

De sign a t i o n U n i t s E 0 E 1 0 E 2 0

API Gravity °API 6 3

. 3 5 8

. 8 5 7

. 0

Relative Den s ity 60/60°F 0

. 7 2 6 2 0

. 7 4 3 5 0

. 7 5 0 6

DVPE – D5191 psi 9

. 1 0 8

. 7 9 8

. 4 7
Oxygenate s - D481 5 MTBE vol % 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 ETBE vol % 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 EtOH vol % 0

. 0 0 9

. 4 2 2 0

. 3 8 O2 wt % 0

. 0 0 3

. 4 9 7

. 4 9 Hydro c a r b on Comp ositio n - D13 19 Aromatic s vol % 2 3

. 4 2 3

. 6 2 1

. 2 Olefins vol % 9

. 6 9

. 6 1 0

. 9 Saturates vol % 6 7

. 1 5 7

. 5 4 7

. 4

D86 Distillation IB P ° F 8 8

. 8 9 7

. 2 1 0 3

. 3 5% Evaporated °F 1 1 4

. 2 1 1 9

. 7 1 2 5

. 0 10% Evaporated °F 1 2 2

. 4 1 2 5

. 1 1 3 1

. 2 20% Evaporated °F 1 3 4

. 5 1 3 5

. 1 1 4 1

. 1 30% Evaporated °F 1 4 8

. 2 1 4 3

. 6 1 4 8

. 5 40% Evaporated °F 1 6 7

. 5 1 5 1

. 7 1 5 4

. 6 50% Evaporated °F 1 9 1

. 0 1 8 9

. 8 1 5 9

. 6 60% Evaporated °F 2 1 4

. 2 2 2 5

. 9 1 6 3

. 8 70% Evaporated °F 2 3 6

. 6 2 4 6

. 9 2 2 7

. 9 80% Evaporated °F 2 6 6

. 2 2 7 5

. 2 2 7 0

. 1 90% Evaporated °F 3 1 6

. 5 3 1 9

. 0 3 1 3

. 7 95% Evaporated °F 3 2 9

. 3 3 3 1

. 9 3 2 5

. 3 De sign ation U nits E 0 E 1 0 E 2 0 EP °F 3 5 3

. 7 3 5 7

. 2 3 4 2

. 0 Re cov e ry Vol % 9 7

. 6 9 7

. 9 9 8

. 3

Re sidu e V ol % 1

. 6 1

. 1 1

. 1 Loss V ol % 0

. 8 1

. 0 0

. 7 Driveability Index 1 0 7 3

. 2 1 0 7 5

. 9 9 8 9

. 1



### 11

### So m e fuel param e ters were supplied by the fuel supplier (Table 3). Th e fuel supplier estim ate (calculated) for the C/H ratio of the E0 fuel was used in the carbon balance calculations for

em issions results to qualify the vehicles.
Table 3 E-8 7 -1 Fuel Su pplier Test F u els Analys is Results
De sign a t i o n U n i t s E 0 E 1 0 E 2 0 Sulfur Co nten t p p m 2 8 2 9 2 7 Es timated C/ H Rat i o 6.159 - - Benze ne Vol % 1

. 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

. 9 6 Re sea r ch Oct ane Numbe r 94.4 92.9 94.6 Motor O c tane Numbe r 84.5 84.1 83.4 (R + M ) / 2 89.5 8 8

. 5 8 9

. 0



### A m o re accurate C/H ratio for the E 0 , E10, and E20 fuels w a s m a de availab l e in the following Table 4, from the detailed hydrocarbon analysis (DHA) perfor m e d by one of the participating laboratories in the general fuel analysis. Note that the DHA yields results for m a ny param e ters already reported above, but the m e thods differ (and the general re sults are the av erage of four laboratory results). Despite the di fferent m e thods, the results are in close agreem ent, and thus are
shown here to confirm th e earlier results.

Table 4 E-87-1 Test Fuels Detaile d Hydrocarbon Analysis Results
De sign a t i o n U n i t s E 0 E 1 0 E 2 0 A r o m a t i c s V o l % 2 5

. 6 5 2 4

. 5 7 2 1

. 7 8 O l e f i n s V o l % 1 0

. 0 9 1 0

. 2 1 1 0

. 7 4 Saturates Vol % 6 3

. 5 0 5 3

. 7 2 4 6

. 2 3 Un cla ssif i e d Vol % 0

. 7 6 1

. 7 5 0

. 1 5 Ethanol Vol % 0

. 0 0 9

. 7 5 2 1

. 1 1 Benze ne Vol % 1

. 0 5 1

. 1 0 0

. 9 7 C/H Ratio 6.196 6.106 5.835 O x y g e n w t

. % 0

. 0 0 3

. 6 1 7

. 7 3 Net He at of Combu s tion B t u / l b 1 8 , 7 3 3 1 7 , 9 7 3 1 7 , 1 6 0



### The required E15 test fuel was not available f r om CRC. TRC Inc. splash blended E98 by volum e with the existing E10 fuel to produce E 15 for this program

. Four drum s o f E10 were splash blended to create E15 for this program

. Detailed analyses were not perform e d on the E15 test fuel blended at TRC Inc. The E15 fuel ethanol content was verified as 14.94 volum e% using ASTM D48 15 by a one of the laboratories par tic ipating in the projec t f u el analyses.

All tes t f u els f o r the E-87-1 progra m were provided, sto r e d , and dispe n sed in dru m quantities

. All program f u el drum s were m a intained at 54 ° F in TRC Inc.’s Em i ssions Labo ratory Fuel Storage Building throughout the program . Fuels were dispensed directly to the Em issions

12

### Laboratory Refueling Bay via in dividual drum pu m p s using underg round transport piping. To

m i ni m i ze the possib ility of any potential fuelin g erro rs during the p r o g ram each fuel chang e event included redundant vehicle/fuel checks betw een the technician perf orm i ng the fuel change and a Project Engineer assigned to the Em issions Laboratory.

Prior to the initial vehicle preconditioning each vehicle was drain e d and filled to 40% tan k capacity with the E0 test fuel. For this and each fuel change in the prog ram the fuel change and preparation procedure provided by CRC and detailed in Table 5 was used.

Table 5 E-87-1 Fuel Change Procedure
S t e p A c t i o n

1 Drain the fuel tank 2 Fill with ne w test f u el to 40% f u ll 3 Run 3 cycles of the road LA-4 cycle

All test vehicle em issions, test weig hts and chassis dynam o m e ter settin gs were taken from the US EPA Annual Certification Te st Results and Data website ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm ). All test vehicle fuel ta nk capacity d a ta were co llected fro m m a nu facturer inform ation.

Step 3: FT P emis sions tes t ing and vehicle rep air – A single exhaust em issions FTP test was

em ployed to qualify the test vehicles for inclusion into the tes t program . If each of the em issions were less than 120% of the relevant em issions standards the vehicle was used for the screening tests. If any of the e m issions were greater th an 120% of standards the vehicle would either be serviced and retested or dropped from the program . Compos ite FTP em issions resu lts for each of the twenty five vehicles in the p r ogram are inclu d ed as Table 6. Details of TRC Inc’s facilities and equipment are included as Appendix A.

13

### Table 6 Composite FTP Em issions Results Co m p o s ite FTP Resu lt (g /m il e) CRC # MY Vehicle Mileage NMHC CO NOx 1 2 0 0 1 Chev rol e t T r ac k e r 11 5, 2 2 3 0. 08 1 1. 5 0. 1 5 2 2 0 0 1 Chev rol e t M e t r o 81 ,7 9 0 0. 14 4 1. 4 0. 0 1 3 1 9 9 9 For d C r o w n Vi ct ori a 73 ,0 5 7 0. 13 6 1. 4 0. 0 6 4 2 0 0 1 Chry sl er PT C r ui s e r 76 ,6 3 7 0. 04 0 0. 6 0. 0 8 5 2 003 N i ssan A ltim a 8 5 ,396 0

. 0 3 3 1

. 0 0

. 1 2 6 20 0 2 Ni ssan Fr o n t i e r T r uc k 70 ,2 1 0 0. 09 0 1. 3 0. 18 7 2 0 0 1 Hy u n dai Acce nt 79 ,3 8 2 0. 05 8 3. 1 0. 1 5 8 2 0 0 4 BM W 3 3 0 i 38 ,7 2 2 0. 01 6 0. 8 0. 0 1 9 1 9 9 9 M i t s ubi shi M i r a g e 11 3, 2 0 4 0. 36 8 4. 5 0. 4 1 10 20 0 1 M i t s ubi shi M o nt er o S p ort 85 ,8 7 1 0. 07 4 2. 4 0. 06 11 19 9 5 Ho n d a Ci vi c DX , L X 16 5, 4 5 5 0. 20 8 2. 6 0. 37 1 2 2 0 0 7 Jeep R u bi c o n 5, 31 2 0. 03 0 1. 0 0. 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 3 Vol k swa g e n Je t t a 88 ,0 2 5 0. 10 4 4. 9 0. 5 2 14 20 0 6 Chev rol e t C o b a l t , 4 do o r 12 ,4 2 3 0. 03 4 0. 7 0. 02 15 20 0 6 Chev rol e t Si l v erad o E x t e n d e d Ca b 41 ,6 1 3 0. 06 2 1. 1 0. 07 1 6 2 0 0 2 Chev rol e t S u b u r b a n 4 W D 83 ,0 3 6 0. 10 3 0. 9 0. 3 8

1 7 2 0 0 7 For d Foc u s 19 ,9 8 8 0. 01 0 0. 2 0. 0 0 1 8 2 0 0 0 For d Foc u s 93 ,7 5 5 0. 04 4 1. 0 0. 0 5 1 9 2 0 0 3 For d Tau r u s 51 ,3 6 6 0. 11 6 2. 9 0. 0 2 20 20 0 2 Do d g e Du ra ng o 4 W D 75 ,1 9 1 0. 18 0 2. 7 0. 21 2 1 2 0 0 0 Toy o t a Si en na 81 ,8 8 0 0. 19 4 1. 6 0. 2 9 2 2 2 0 0 0 Acco r d L X 97 ,2 9 1 0. 06 8 1. 9 0. 0 6 2 3 2 0 0 6 Ni ssan Q u est 35 ,6 4 4 0. 03 8 0. 1 0. 0 1 2 4 2 0 0 1 Vol k swa g e n Je t t a 71 ,9 2 7 0. 01 0 0. 4 0. 0 2 2 5 2 0 0 1 M a z d a 62 6 75 ,2 5 3 0. 05 6 0. 6 0. 0 3



### During the FTP testing, 23 of 25 vehicles were be low the i r f

u ll usef ul lif e em issio n standa rds. No vehicles required an y repairs, replacem ent, or retesting of the em issions system . The 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage (CRC #9) and the 2003 Volksw agen Jetta (CRC #13) exceeded their NMHC standard by 18% and 15% respectively. The Jetta also exceeded the CO standard by 15%. Neither of these vehicles exceeded their s t anda rds by 20% which would have required repair o r replacem ent.

Seven vehicles received m i nor serv ic e prio r to en ter i ng the te st prog ram

. The vehic l e service is detailed in Table 7. Fo ur vehicles had exhaus t system leaks which required new exhaust pipes. The 1995 Honda Civic (CRC #11) o xygen sensors we re not functioning and were replaced prior to starting the test program.

14

### Table 7 Veh i cle Service Detail

CRC # Vehicle Repair 1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker Exhaust pipe fro m catalyst rearward including muffler 2 2001 Chevrolet Metro Exhaust pipe fro m catalyst rearward including muffler 11 1995 Honda Civic Upstream and downstream oxygen sensors 13 2003 VW Je tta Upper radiator hose rep l acem ent, new coolant 19 2003 Ford Taurus New battery 20 2002 Dodge Durango Exhaust pipe fro m catalyst rearward including muffler 25 2001 Mazda 626 Exhaust system including m u ffler but excluding catalyst

Step 4: Vehicle and lab o ratory instrumentatio n – All vehicles selected for the screening tes t were instrum e nted with a wide-range oxygen se nsor just upstream of the front catalyst. Therm o couples were lo cated jus t upstream and downstream o f the fr ont catalyst and at the oxygen sensor(s). The wide range oxygen sensor m easures the air:fuel ratio even during periods of enrichm e nt or enleanm e nt. The therm o couples were installed to docu m e nt changes in exhaust and cataly tic converter tem p erature. For v e hicl es with two separate ex haust stream s for each engine bank, only a single exhaust stream was in strum e nted. During vehicle instrumentation all exhaust gaskets and fasteners exposed during vehi cle d i sassembly were replaced with new ones.

TRC Inc. attem p ted to place all therm o couples in the center of the exhaust stream 1” from the catalyst face. The thermocouples lo cated at the factory oxyg en sensor lo cation s were placed in the center of the exhaust str eam slightly upstream of the sensor. In som e cases two therm o couples would have occupied approxim a tely the same location. Typically this occurred with the oxygen sensor therm o couple and the catal yst inlet therm o cou p les. Photos 1 – 4 are included as typica l instr u m e ntation insta lla tion s cenarios. TRC Inc. in stalled b e tw een two and four therm o couples in each of the 25 veh i cles for th is program ; a detailed list of the therm o couple locations f o r each veh i cle is includ ed in Table 8.

15

### Photograph 1 Instrum e ntation In stallation 2007 F o rd Focus (CRC #17)

Therm o cou p le # 2 p re-catal y s t

UEG O o x yg en s e n s o r

Ex haust m a ni f o l d

OEM ox yg en s e ns o r

Therm o cou p le # 3 p os t -catal y s t Therm o cou p le # 1 at ox yg en se n s o r



### Photograph 2 Instrum e ntation Inst allation 2003 F o rd Taurus (CRC #19)

Ex haust m a ni f o l d

Therm o cou p le # 1 at ox yg en se n s o r

UEG O o x yg en s e n s o r

OEM ox yg en s e ns o r



### 16

### Photograph 3 Instrum e ntation In stallation 2003 F o rd Focus (CRC #19)

Therm o cou p le # 2 p re-catal y s t



### Photograph 4 Instrum e ntation Inst allation 2003 Nissan Altim a (CRC #5 )

UEG O o x yg e n sens or p or t
OEM ox yg en s e ns o r

Therm o cou p le # 1 at ox yg e n s e ns or/ p re-catal y s t



### 17

### Table 8 Vehicle Therm o couple Locations Therm o couple
CRC # T #1 T #2 T #3 T #4

1 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- catalyst; close

c o u p l e d p o s t

- c a t a l y s t Oxy g en Se ns or downstream

2 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- catalyst; unde r f l o o r P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

3 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst; drivers side not i n m a ni fol d Oxy g en Se ns or / P ost

catalyst - close coupled

4 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld Pre-catalyst ;

u n d e r bod y ~15" Po st- catalyst

5 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst # 1 ; m a n i fo ld Post catalyst #1/ O xy gen Se nso r - close c o upled Pre catalyst #2 Post catalyst #2

6 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst; manifold Post-catalyst; close coupled Oxy g en Se ns or #2

7 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst; manifold Post-catalyst; close coupled

8 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst; manifold Post-catalyst; close coupled Oxy g en Se ns or # 2

9 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- cat al y s t ; unde rflo o r P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

10 Oxy g en Se ns or passe nge r si de pre

- cat al y s t ; unde rflo o r P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

11 Oxy g en Se ns or Pre-catalyst Post-catalyst

12 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- cat al y s t ; unde rflo o r P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

13 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
u n d e r bod y P r e

- c a t a l y s t P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

14 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld Pre-catalyst ;

u n d e r bod y ~18" Po st- catalyst

15 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst; drivers side not i n m a ni fol d Pre-catalyst Post-catalyst Oxy g en Se ns or #2

16 Oxy g en Se ns or ; unde r b o d y P r e

- c a t a l y s t P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

17 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- catalyst; close coupled post

- cat al y s t ; 2nd Oxy g en Se ns or

18 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- catalyst; close coupled P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

19 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- catalyst; close

c o u p l e d P o s t

- c a t a l y s t



### 18

### Table 8 Vehicle Therm o couple Locations, continued

CRC # T #1 T #2 T #3 T #4

20 Oxy g en Se ns or ; unde r b o d y P r e

- c a t a l y s t Post- catalyst Oxy g en Se ns or #2

21 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- cat al y s t ; unde rflo o r P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

22 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- cat al y s t ; unde rflo o r P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

23 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst; manifold Post-catalyst; close coupled Oxy g en Se ns or # 2

24 Oxy g en Se ns or ;
man i f o ld pre

- cat al y s t ; unde rflo o r P o s t

- c a t a l y s t

25 Oxy g en Se ns or / P re catalyst; manifold Post-catalyst; close coupled; 2 nd Ox yg en Sens or pre

- catalyst #2

un de rb o d y p o s t

- cat al y s t # 2



### All therm o c ouples installed in vehicles for this program were K-type and were installed into the vehicle exhaust system u s ing a co m p ression f i ttin g welded or thread ed into the pipe or exhaust

m a nifold as appropriate. Twisted/shielded K- therm o couple wiring was used to connect the therm o couples to the TRC Inc. data acquisition equipm ent.

The wide-range oxygen sensor data for this program were collected using a universal exhaust gas oxygen (UEGO) sensor and Air Fuel Ratio Modul e. Several individual UEGO sensors were used for th is program . Each vehicle com p leted the en tire test prog ra m with the sam e sensor however, sensors were reused during the program and TRC Inc. did not tr ack which sensors were used in each vehicle throughout the program

.

W i de range UEGO an d therm o couple data w e re collected using TR C Inc. data acquisition equipm ent supported by TRC Inc. data acquisition so ftware operating at 10 Hz for this program

.
Engine Con t rol Module (ECM) data were reco rded from each veh i cle durin g th e European Programm e for Em ission, Fuels, and Engine T echnologies (EPEFE) Sulfur Purge test cycle (EPEFE test) via the Data L i nk connector (DL C ). TRC Inc. elected to record each channel available via the vehicle’s DLC du ring the progra m

. The num b er of data channels reco rded during the program varied base d on vehicle make/m odel and ra nged from 36 channels (2007 Jeep Rubicon) to 13 channels (2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser). Data were recorded at the m a xi m u m speed provided by the vehicle DLC (approxim a te ly 4 Hz). The 1995 Honda Civic (CRC #11) was not equipped with a DLC and no ECM data we re reco rd ed. Additio nal ins t rum e ntation was not added to the 1995 Honda Civic to collect data.

19

### Step 5: European Programme for Emission, Fuels, and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) Sulfur Purge Test Cycle Matrix – The EPEFE sulfur purge cycle was chosen as the basis for the test procedure. This cycle was d e veloped to heat the catalyst to a ve ry high tem p eratu r e in a rich env i ron m ent. Its or igina l purpo se was to f a cilita te th e p u rging of ac cum u lated sulf ur f r om the c a ta lyst to enab le more repre s en tative e v al u a tion of catalyst efficien cy. For th e purposes of this tes t , th e high c a ta ly st tem p eratures induced by this procedure will ensu re that th e vehicle’s
contro l sys t em will enrich the air

- f u el ra tio to cool the exhaust an d prote c t the catalys t. Operation in the enriched (Lam bda < 1) region ensu res th at the control system is not in close d loop control and is using calculated f u el vol um es for control of the air-fuel ratio.

Each vehicle has its own m a p of Lam bda ver s us engine speed, m a nifold pressure and other param e ters. Although most vehicles frequently ope rate enriched (Lambda <1) it is im portant to have a rep e atable procedure that en sures th e en gine is op erating with an enrich ed air-fuel ratio. The EPEFE purge cycle does this a nd has the addition a l be nef it of allowing the control sys t em

m a ny oppor tunities to learn the v a rio u s test fuel com positions

.
The procedu r e was m odified from its original cycle of 30 mph to 70 m ph accelerations to 0 to 84 m ph acceleration s . This leng thening of th e acceleration was done to lengthen the tim e the vehicle spends at W O T. Many vehicles have a tim e r or other device to initially inhibit enrichm e nt at WOT. By lengthening the durati on of the WOT period the vehicle is m o re likely to go into en richm e nt enabling the fuel effect to b e discerned.

20

### The EPEFE test was perfor m ed for each vehicle and fuel co mbination. A total of ten wide open throttle accelerations were pe rform e d while recording UEGO, th erm o couple, and D L C data. The steps to p e rf orm the EPEFE test f o r

this prog ra m ar e deta iled in Table 9. During the program all test vehicles were stored in TRC Inc. ’s em issions soak room between 68-86° F.

Table 9 CRC E-87-1 EPEFE Sulfur Purge Test Cycle Procedure - Modified

Step # Procedure 1 Dri v e t h e ve hi cl e fr om i d l e t o 5 5 m ph a n d h o l d spee d fo r 5 m i nut es (t o bri n g cat al y s t t o f u l l worki n g tem p erature )

. 2 Reduce ve hi cl e spee d t o 30 m p h an d h o l d sp eed fo r one m i nut e

. 3 Reduce spee d t o 0 m ph a n d i d l e fo r 90 sec o n d s. 4 Accelerate at WOT (wide-open throttle) for a minim u m of 5 se conds, to achieve a speed in

excess o f 70 m p h ( 8 4 m ph). C ont i n ue WO T abo v e 70 m ph, if necessary t o achieve 5-sec o nd acceleration duration (12 sec o nds or m o re is desi ra ble). Hold the pea k s p e e d for 15 sec o nds and the n decel erat e to 30 m ph. 5 Main tain 30 m p h fo r on e m i n u t e. 6 Reduce spee d t o 0 m ph a n d i d l e fo r 90 sec o n d s. 7 Repeat steps 4 through 6 to ac hieve 5 WOT e x cursions

. 8 One sul f ur removal cycle has been com p leted. 9 Repeat steps 1 to 7 for the sec o nd s u lfur rem oval cycle. 10 The pr ot oc ol i s com p l e t e i f t h e necessa ry par a m e t e rs 8 have been ac hieve d

.

8 Succe ssf ul c o m p l e t i on o f t h e p r ot ocol was d e fi ne d as c o l l e ct i on of dat a fr om t e n W O T e v ent s m eeti n g t h e
co nd itio ns d e tailed in Step #4 o f th e p r o c ed ure.



### 21

### Each vehicle perform e d the EPEFE test using the E0 , E10, E15, and E20 test fuels. The initial test fuel was always E0. Following the E0 EPEF E test, th e se quence of the rem a ining EXX f u els was randomized for the entire vehicle fleet. The te st fuel order for each vehicle is detailed in Table 10.

Table 10 CRC E-87-1 Fuel Test Matrix

CRC # Vehicle Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4 1 Chev rol e t T r ac k e r E 0 E1 0 E 2 0 E 1 5 2 Chev rol e t M e t r o E 0 E1 5 E 2 0 E 1 0 3 For d C r o w n Vi ct ori a E 0 E1 5 E 1 0 E 2 0 4 Chry sl er P T C r ui s e r E 0 E2 0 E 1 0 E 1 5 5 N i s s a n A ltim a E0 E20 E 1 0 E 1 5 6 Ni ssan Fr o n t i e r T r uc k E0 E1 0 E1 5 E2 0 7 Hy u ndai Acce nt E 0 E1 5 E 2 0 E 1 0 8 B M W 3 3 0 i E 0 E 2 0 E 1 5 E 1 0 9 M i t s ubi shi M i r a g e E 0 E1 5 E 2 0 E 1 0 10 M i t s ubi shi M o nt er o S p ort E0 E1 0 E1 5 E2 0 11 Ho n d a Ci vi c DX , L X E0 E2 0 E1 0 E1 5 1 2 Jeep R ubi c o n E 0 E1 5 E 1 0 E 2 0 1 3 Vol k swa g e n Je t t a E 0 E1 0 E 2 0 E 1 5 14 Chev rol e t C o b a l t , 4 do o r E0 E2 0 E1 5 E1 0 15 Chev rol e t Si l v erad o E x t e n d e d Ca b* E1 5* E1 0 E2 0 E0 * 1 6 Chev rol e t S u b u r b a n 4 W D E 0 E1 0 E 1 5 E 2 0 1 7 For d Foc u s E 0 E1 5 E 1 0 E 2 0 1 8 For d Foc u s E 0 E1 5 E 1 0 E 2 0 1 9 For d Tau r u s E 0 E2 0 E 1 0 E 1 5 20 Do d g e Du ra ng o 4 W D E0 E1 5 E2 0 E1 0 2 1 Toy o t a Si en na E 0 E1 0 E 2 0 E 1 5 2 2 Acco r d L X E 0 E1 0 E 1 5 E 2 0 2 3 Ni ssan Q u est * E2 0 * E1 5 E 1 0 E 0 * 2 4 Vol k swa g e n Je t t a E 0 E2 0 E 1 5 E 1 0 2 5 M a z d a 62 6 E 0 E1 0 E 2 0 E 1 5



### * The Chevrolet Silverado (CRC #15) and Nissa n Quest (CRC #23) E0 test results were determ ined to be invalid post-te st du e to a f a ilu re of the data acquisition system . For those two vehicles the E0 test was repeated at the conc lusion of the rando m ized test fuel sequence.

22

### Step 6: Fuel Change Procedure – For each fuel change in the program, the CRC E-87-1 fuel change and preparation procedure was used. Th is included a drain of the fuel tank, a 40% tank capacity fill with new test fuel, and operating the vehicle though three consecutive LA-4 road cycles on a chassis dyn amom eter.

Data Collected and Analysis - Each vehicle perform e d f our EPEFE Sulfur Purge Cycle Procedures during the program

. The vehicle speed, oxygen sensor air-fuel-ratio (AFR), and catalyst temperatu r e data from the tenth WOT ev ent for each vehicle an d fuel com b ination were used for analysis pu rpos es to d e termine if each v e hicle used adaptiv e fu el trim s during open loop control. The 10 th 

### WOT event was chosen to ens u re that the vehicle was able to learn and apply the fuel trim in the W O T condition to assess if the control software used adaptive fuel trim

.
The oxygen sensor AFR data were norm a lized for each vehicle using a 14.68 value. A chart was created for each vehicle visually displaying the norm a lized oxygen sensor lam bda for each test f u el. If the individua l f u el curves in this Lam bda Chart overlay each other once the vehicle stabilizes, the vehicle is identifi ed as using adaptive fuel trip during open loop control. For the purposes of this p r ogram, vehicle s t ability was identified as operating v e hicle speed s above 40- 50 m ph. If the ind i vidu al fuel cu rv es in the Lambda Chart shadow each other separated by the oxygen content of the test fuel, th e vehicle was identified as not em plo y ing adaptive fuel trim during open loop control. In thes e cases, the curves should be separated according to the oxygen content of the tes t f u el with the E0 curve be in g the lowes t num e ric la mbda curve f o llowed by E10 < E15 < E20.

Lam bda Charts from a typical rep r esentative o f using adaptive fuel trim and no adaptive fuel trim during open loop control are included as Figures 5 and 6 in th is r e p o rt. A complete se t of Lam bda Charts f o r th e p r ogram is in cluded as A ppendix 2 of this report.

23

### Figure 2 is the Lam bda Chart for the 2006 Chev rolet Silverado (CRC #15). As noted on the chart, the fuel m i xture is constant as ethanol content increases. This veh i cle is adjus t ing for th e ethanol content of the test fuel during open loop cont rol. This vehicle and data are representative of an adjusting vehicle.

Figure 2 2006 Chevrolet Silverado (C RC #15) Lambda Chart

24

### Figure 3 is the Lam bda Chart for the 2002 Nissan Frontier (CRC #6). As noted on the chart the fuel m i xture enleans as ethanol c ontent incre a se s f r om test to tes t . This vehic l e is n o t ad justin g for the ethanol content of the test f u el during open loop control. This vehicle and data are representative of a non-adjusting vehicle.

Figure 3 2002 Nissan Frontier (CRC #6) Lam bda Chart

While testin g the vehicles, data was taken f r om the data por t and record ed. This data includ ed the long term fuel trim s throughout the test. The long term fuel trim s vary depending on engine speed and manifold pres sure b ecause of the variat ion in fuel flows. Typically a v e hicle has m a ny values of long term fuel trim stored to account f o r fluctuations in its value as the engine speeds and loads ch ange.

To co m p are the vehicles, sam p les were taken of these trim s under three conditions that were rela tive l y ea sy to replica t e. In all ca ses, the data was taken from the E0 tests. The f i rst was a t idle where the vehicle s p eed was zero, the thro tt le opening was at a m i nim u m, and engine was at idle sp eed. The secon d was at 5 5 m ph crui se where th e vehicle s p eed was approxim a tely 55 m ph, throttle opening was m odest and stable a nd rpm wa s indicative of t op gear wi t h a l o cked

25

### or slip controlled torque converter. The thir d was wide open throttle (WOT) where the speed was high, the engine speed was over 4500 rpm ex cept for a few high torque engines, and the throttle opening was at a m a xi m u m. The da ta are presented in Table 11 and Figure 4.

Table 11 Long Term Fu el Trim s Long T e rm Fuel T r i m CRC # V e hi cle Idle Crui se W O T 1 T r a c k e r

- 8

- 4

. 2 0 2 M e t r o 3. 6 0. 4 4. 68 3 C r o w n V i c 4

. 9 4

. 3 0 4 P T Crui s e r

- 1 8 -9

. 3 0 5 A l ti m a

- 4

. 7

- 6

. 1

- 0

. 2 6 F r o n t i e r 4

. 4 -2

. 4 0

. 1 7 A c c e nt -0

. 7 8

- 1 0 8 B M W

- 2

. 6

- 1

. 1

- 0

. 1 9 M i r a g e -5

. 4 3 2

. 3 1 0 M o n t e r o

- 1 0

. 8 1

. 4

1 1 C i v i c No Dat a No Dat a No Dat a 1 2 R u b i c o n 3

. 4 3

. 1 0 1 3 2 0 03 Jet t a 11 .7 11 .1 12 .0 5 1 4 C o b a l t -14

. 7

- 1 0 0

. 7 8 1 5 S i lv e r a d o 4

. 7 3

. 7 2

. 1 1 6 S u b u r b a n 2

. 9 4

. 7 8

. 9

17 20 07 F o c u s

- 8

. 1

- 4

. 6

- 0

. 7 8

18 20 00 F o c u s 1

. 9 -0

. 4 0 1 9 T a u r u s -6. 3 0. 9 1. 95 2 0 D u r a n g o -6

. 6 -5

. 6 0 2 1 S i e n n a

- 5

. 8

- 6

. 9

- 5

. 5 2 2 A c c o r d

- 1 0 -8

. 2 -9

. 6 2 3 Q u e s t 7

. 5 4

. 7 0

. 7 2 4 2 0 01 Jet t a -2

. 3 4 0 0 2 5 6 2 6 -6

. 5 -5

. 1 0 A v er age -2 .33 -1 .18 0

. 7 8 St. Dev

. 7. 10 5. 23 4. 02



### 26

### Figure 4 Distribution of Long Term Fuel Trim s

As can be s een the average fuel trim at idle is -2.33 indicating a rich bias. This richness is probably due to canister purge activity. W h en th e evaporativ e em issions canis ter is p u rging fuel vapors tha t were stored in the canister, th e va pors are f l u s hed into th e intake m a nif o ld. This

un m e tered fuel vapor w ould m a ke t h e vehicle appear “r ich” to the engin e controller prom pting it to redu ce th e fuel trim hence th e average neg a tiv e value. C a nister pu rg e typically h a s a g r eater effect on fuel trim at id le because the overall fu el volum es are sm all. More inte re sting is the wide variation in conditions. This shows tha t ther e m a y be cons ide r able var i ab ility in the response of individual vehicles to added fuel oxygen content. It is expected that vehicles with a negativ e lon g term f

u el trim would be less like l y to exper i e n ce catalys t durability impacts with added oxygenate because these vehicles would tend to operate rich in the absence of long-term f u el trim

.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to know the details o f each veh i cle’s control strategy and we canno t know how the com p ensation for these effects w o rk or even if it exists. F o r the purposes of doing additional e xperim e nts to determ ine if m i d-level ethano l blends will h a ve an ef f

e ct, sever a l vehicles of each typ e would be req u ired to sample the fuel trim variation for th at vehicle typ e

. Alterna tive l y, vehicles s e lec t ed f o r a ddition a l tes ting cou l d b e scre ened a nd those with a built- i n rich bias removed fro m the test sam p le on the assum p tion that they would be relatively insensitiv e to the effects of ethanol o n the control system

.

27

### DAT A ANALYSI S

The goal of data analysis was to identify vehicles which run lean and hot on E2 0. Several criteria were jointly de term ined by CRC and the US Department of Energy National Labs to be im portant to correc tly id entif y thes e vehicles. The f i rst s t ag e of the data analysis was to iden tif y the vehicles which did not use learned fuel trim (LFT) at WOT. This was decided by looking at Lam bda cha nges relative to changes in fuel ethanol level.

Average lambda values from 60 t o 63 m ph a nd the data traces th em selves were exam ined. Thirteen vehicles appear not to u s e learned fuel trim (LFT) at WO T. Eight vehicles appeared to use learned fuel trim (LFT) at WOT and one could not be analyzed. Three vehicles gave

am biguous r e sults where there were differences in La m bda v a lues for most fuels but the orders did not m a tch the variation in oxygen content or not all Lam bda val u es differed fro m one another. Th e results are summarized in Table 12 and Table 20, colum n 3.

28

### Table 12 Assessm ent of Long Term Fuel Tr im (LTF) Usage in Open Loop Control

CRC # Vehicle LFT @ WOT 1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker No 2 2001 Chevrolet Metro ? 3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria No 4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser ? 5 2003 Nissan Altim a No 6 2002 Nissan Frontier No 7 2001 Hyundai Accent No 8 2 0 0 4 BM W 3 3 0 i Y e s 9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage Yes 10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4W D Yes

11 1995 Honda Civic No 12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon No 13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta NA 14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt No 15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. Yes 16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4 W D Yes 17 2007 Ford Focus ? 18 2000 Ford Focus No 19 2003 Ford Taurus Yes 20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD No 21 2000 Toyota Sienna Yes 22 2000 Honda Accord LX No 23 2006 Nissan Quest No 24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta Yes 25 2001 Mazda 626 No

The twenty-five vehicles were then rank fro m 1 to 25 using the criteria detailed in Table 13. These criteria were equally weighted and summed. The detailed ranking for each category for all vehicles are included as Tables 13-19 while the summarized Final Rank Order results are included as Table 20. The supporting catalyst inlet tem p erature data collected during the program wa s included in Appendix 3 of this report.

29

### Table 13 CRC E-87-1 LFT Identification Criteria

# C r i t e r i a 1 Average Lambda E20, (50-70 m ph), (highest to lowest) 2 Power to weight (lowest to highest) 3 Vehicle Registration, (2008 data), (highest to lowest) 4 Average in let catalys t temperatur e, (50-70m ph), (highest to lowest) 5 Delta lam b d a , (E20-E0), (60-63 m p h ) , (highest to lowest) 6 Delta in let c a taly st tem p eratu r e, (50

- 70m ph), highest to lowe st)

These six criteria were s e lected for the followin g reason s. Average Lambda E20 was selected because a vehicle with a high Lam bda value at W O T should be more likely to approach stoichiom e try (Lam bda = 1) or even go lean in ordinary open loop operation. This near stoich iom e tric opera tion is m o st lik ely to be da m a ging to cataly st dura b ility. Power to weight was selected becaus e a vehicle with a low po wer to weig ht ratio is more lik ely to operate its engine at h i gh loads and in open loo p control. N u m b er in service was deem ed i m port a nt becaus e a vehic l e with a ca taly st durability issue is m o re im portant f o r air qua lity if ther e a r e a large

num b er of vehicles in th e in-use fleet. Average inlet catalyst tem p erature was chosen because a vehicle with an initially hot cata l yst will be m o re sensitive to temperatu r e inc r eases. Th e difference in Lam bda b e tween E20 and E0 opera tion is indicative of whether and how well a vehicle is using adapted fuel trim s to calculate op en loop air fuel ratios. Sim ilarly the difference in inlet ca ta lyst tem p eratures betwee n E20 and E0 operation is indicative of ho w well the control system is adapting to the ethanol in the fuel.

For criteria 1, 4, and 6 (tables 14, 17, and 19) the data traces were analyzed between 50 and 70 mph during the ten t h WOT event for each v e hicle. In cases where there was unstable data present, the unstable regions were excluded fr om the analysis. The typical cause of data instab ility was a gearsh ift. The vehicles which included un stable speed ranges and the actual speed range used to analyze the L a m bda data ar e indicated in column 4 of each table. For criteria 1, 4, 5, and 6 (tables 14, 17, 18, and 19) The 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) data exhibited widely varying air-fuel ratios (Lam bda s) throughout the 50-70 m ph analysis range and were excluded fro m the rank order analysis.

30

### Table 14 CRC E-87-1 Average Lam bda E20 Rank Order Results

CRC # Vehicle E20 Lambd a Adjusted Analysis

Ran ge Ran k Orde r 6 2 0 0 2 Nissa n Frontie r 0

. 9 9 1 20 2002 Dod ge Durang o 4WD 0.89 2 18 2000 Fo rd Fo cu s 0.88* 50-6 6 mph 3 1 4 2 0 0 6 Chevrol e t C o b a l t 0

. 8 7 4 2 3 2 0 0 6 Nissa n Que s t 0

. 8 6 5 2 4 2 0 0 1 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a 0

. 8 6 6 12 2007 Chry sle r Jee p Ru bicon 0.86* 56-7 0 mph 7 8 2004 BM W 3 30i 0.85 8 3 1999 Fo rd Crown Victo r ia 0.84 9 1 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t Tracke r 0

. 8 3 10 9 1999 Mitsubi shi Mirage 0.81 11 19 2003 Fo rd Ta uru s 0.80 12 7 2 0 0 1 Hyund a i A c c e n t 0

. 7 9 13 22 2000 Hon da Acco rd LX 0.78 14 15 2006 Chevrol e t Silverado, Ext. 0.78 15 2 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t M e t r o 0

. 7 7 16 17 2007 Fo rd Fo cu s 0.77 17 16 2002 Chevrol e t Suburb an, 4WD 0.75 18 10 2001 Mitsubi shi Monte r o Sport 4WD 0.75* 50-6 8 mph 19 5 2 0 0 3 Nissa n A l t i m a 0

. 7 3 20 11 1995 Hon da Civic 0.725 21 2 1 2 0 0 0 T o y o t a S i e n n a 0

. 7 2 22 25 2001 Ma zd a 626 0.72* 50-6 4 mph 23 4 2001 Chry sle r PT Crui se r 0.7 24 13 2003 Vol k swagen Jetta NA 25



### 31

### Table 15 CRC E-87-1 Power-to-W e ight Ratio Rank Order Results

CRC # Vehicle Powe r (HP ) Weig ht (lbs ) P:W Rat i o Ran k Orde r Re sult s 6 2 0 0 2 Nissa n Frontie r 1 4 3 3 7 3 4 0

. 0 3 8 1 2 4 2 0 0 1 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a 1 1 5 2 8 8 6 0

. 0 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t M e t r o 7 9 1 9 5 8 0

. 0 4 0 3 10 2001 Mitsubi shi Monte r o Sport 4WD 165 4085 0.040 4 7 2 0 0 1 Hyund a i A c c e n t 9 2 2 2 5 1 0

. 0 4 1 5 9 1999 Mitsubi shi Mirage 92 2185 0.042 6 25 2001 Ma zd a 626 125 2864 0.044 7 1 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t Tracke r 1 2 7 2 8 0 5 0

. 0 4 5 8 11 1995 Hon da Civic 102 2226 0.046 9 19 2003 Fo rd Ta uru s 155 3335 0.046 10 4 2001 Chry sle r PT Crui se r 150 3117 0.048 11 22 2000 Hon da Acco rd LX 150 3020 0.050 12 2 1 2 0 0 0 T o y o t a S i e n n a 1 9 4 3 8 2 6 0

. 0 5 1 1 3 20 2002 Dod ge Durang o 4WD 235 4629 0.051 14 18 2000 Fo rd Fo cu s 130 2545 0.051 15 3 1999 Fo rd Crown Victo r ia 200 3909 0.051 16 17 2007 Fo rd Fo cu s 136 2636 .052 17 1 4 2 0 0 6 Chevrol e t C o b a l t 1 4 5 2 7 2 6 0

. 0 5 3 1 8 12 2007 Chry sle r Jee p Ru bicon 205 3762 0.054 19 5 2 0 0 3 Nissa n A l t i m a 1 7 5 3 0 4 3 0

. 0 5 8 2 0 16 2002 Chevrol e t Suburb an, 4WD 285 4914 0.058 21 13 2003 Vol k swagen Jetta 180 3091 .058 22 2 3 2 0 0 6 Nissa n Que s t 2 4 0 4 0 8 6 0

. 0 5 9 2 3 15 2006 Chevrol e t Silverado, Ext. 295 4627 0.064 24 8 2004 BM W 3 30i 225 3278 0.069 25



### 32

### The Polk 2008 Vehicle Registration data included in Table 16 are m ode l year specific for engine displacem en t only. The registration total fo r the 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #1 3) includes both turbo and non-turbo 4 cylinder engines. The twenty five vehicles selected f o r screening repres ent ap proxim a tely 3.2 m illion of the vehicles registered in 2008.

Table 16 CRC E-87-1 Vehicle Regi stration Rank Order Results

CRC # Vehicle Regi stratio n (x1,000) Ran k Orde r 15 2006 Chevrol e t Silverado, Ext. 414 1 22 2000 Hon da Acco rd LX 256 2 18 2000 Fo rd Fo cu s 248 3 11 1995 Hon da Civic 237 4 19 2003 Fo rd Ta uru s 228 5 17 2007 Fo rd Fo cu s 225 6 1 4 2 0 0 6 Chevrol e t C o b a l t 2 1 8 7 3 1999 Fo rd Crown Victo r ia 178 8 5 2 0 0 3 Nissa n A l t i m a 1 7 5 9 4 2001 Chry sle r PT Crui se r 147 10 2 1 2 0 0 0 T o y o t a S i e n n a 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 3 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a * 1 0 8 1 2 2 4 2 0 0 1 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a 9 8 1 3 20 2002 Dod ge Durang o 4WD 89 14 12 2007 Chry sle r Jee p Ru bicon 88 15 25 2001 Ma zd a 626 65 16 7 2 0 0 1 Hyund a i A c c e n t 6 0 1 7 10 2001 Mitsubi shi Monte r o Sport 4WD 39 18 16 2002 Chevrol e t Suburb an, 4WD 32 19 8 2004 BM W 3 30i 31 20 6 2 0 0 2 Nissa n Frontie r 2 7 2 1 9 1999 Mitsubi shi Mirage 27 22 2 3 2 0 0 6 Nissa n Que s t 2 2 2 3 1 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t Tracke r 1 7 2 4 2 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t M e t r o 1 4 2 5



### 33

### Table 17 CRC E-87-1 Average E20 Catalyst Inlet Tem p erature Rank Order Results

CRC # Vehicle Average Cata lyst Inlet Temperature, (deg C) Adjusted Analysis Ran ge Ran k Orde r 7 2 0 0 1 Hyund a i A c c e n t 8 1 1 1 25 2001 Ma zd a 626 807* 50-6 4 mph 2 1 4 2 0 0 6 Chevrol e t C o b a l t 7 9 5 3 5 2 0 0 3 Nissa n A l t i m a 7 8 7 4 1 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t Tracke r 7 8 0 5 2 4 2 0 0 1 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a 7 7 0 6 12 2007 Chry sle r Jee p Ru bicon 768* 56-7 0 mph 7 19 2003 Fo rd Ta uru s 756 8 2 3 2 0 0 6 Nissa n Que s t 7 5 3 9 18 2000 Fo rd Fo cu s 739* 50-6 6 mph 10 8 2004 BM W 3 30i 735 11 17 2007 Fo rd Fo cu s 725 12 10 2001 Mitsubi shi Monte r o Sport 4WD 717 13 3 1999 Fo rd Crown Victo r ia 715 14 6 2 0 0 2 Nissa n Frontie r 7 1 5 15 15 2006 Chevrol e t Silverado, Ext. 708 16 4 2001 Chry sle r PT Crui se r 707 17 22 2000 Hon da Acco rd LX 691 18 20 2002 Dod ge Durang o 4WD 653 19 11 1995 Hon da Civic 641 20 1 3 2 0 0 3 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a * 6 2 6 21 9 1999 Mitsubi shi Mirage 603 22 16 2002 Chevrol e t Suburb an, 4WD 600 23 2 1 2 0 0 0 T o y o t a S i e n n a 5 9 0 24 2 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t M e t r o 5 7 9 25



### 34

### The Delta Lam bda E0-E20 values reported and ranked in Table 18 were recorded between 60 and 63 m ph during the tenth WOT event for each ve hicle. It is an ticipated that the E0-E20 difference should be near zero for adapting vehi cles and around 0.07 for non-adapting vehicles.

Table 18 CRC E-87-1 Delta Lam bda E0-E20 Rank Order Results

CRC # Vehicle Delta Lam bd a E0-E20 Adjusted Analysis

Ran ge Ran k Orde r 2 3 2 0 0 6 Nissa n Que s t 0

. 0 9 9 1 6 2 0 0 2 Nissa n Frontie r 0

. 0 9 6 2 12 2007 Chry sle r Jee p Ru bicon 0.085 3 3 1999 Fo rd Crown Victo r ia 0.084 4 20 2002 Dod ge Durang o 4WD 0.071 5 7 2 0 0 1 Hyund a i A c c e n t 0

. 0 6 8 * 62-6 5 mph 6 25 2001 Ma zd a 626 0.062 7 22 2000 Hon da Acco rd LX 0.061 8 18 2000 Fo rd Fo cu s 0.059 9 1 4 2 0 0 6 Chevrol e t C o b a l t 0

. 0 5 9 10 5 2 0 0 3 Nissa n A l t i m a 0

. 0 5 2 11 11 1995 Hon da Civic 0.050* 61-6 4 mph 12 1 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t Tracke r 0

. 0 4 6 13 2 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t M e t r o 0

. 0 3 4 14 4 2001 Chry sle r PT Crui se r 0.026* 58-6 1 mph 15 2 4 2 0 0 1 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a 0

. 0 1 3 16 19 2003 Fo rd Ta uru s 0.01 17 9 1999 Mitsubi shi Mirage 0.009 18 2 1 2 0 0 0 T o y o t a S i e n n a 0

. 0 0 9 19 15 2006 Chevrol e t Silverado, Ext. 0.002 20 16 2002 Chevrol e t Suburb an, 4WD -0.001 21 8 2004 BM W 3 30i -0.002 22 17 2007 Fo rd Fo cu s -0.008 23 10 2001 Mitsubi shi Monte r o Sport 4WD -0.019 24 13 2003 Vol k swagen Jetta* 25



### 35

### The Delta I n let Catalys t Tem p erature E20-E0 valu es reported and ranked in Table 19. It is anticipated that the E20-E0 difference should be negative for adapting vehicles due to the cooling effect of ethanol and pos itive for non-adapting vehicles due to the enleanm e n t effect of ethanol.

Table 19 CRC E-87-1 Delta Inlet Catalyst Tem p erature Lam b da E20-E0 Rank Order Results

CRC # Vehicle Delta Catalyst Tempe r atu r e E20-E0 (deg C) Adjusted Analysis

Ran ge Ran k Orde r 25 2001 Ma zd a 626 

### 33 .2 50-6 4 mph 

### 1 3 1999 Fo rd Crown Victo r ia 

### 28 .2 2 6 2 0 0 2 Nissa n Frontie r 

### 25 .0 3
5 2 0 0 3 Nissa n A l t i m a 

### 23 .3 4 22 2000 Hon da Acco rd LX 

### 20 .1 5 11 1995 Hon da Civic 

### 19 .5 6 2 3 2 0 0 6 Nissa n Que s t 

### 18 .0 7 18 2000 Fo rd Fo cu s 

### 8. 9 50-6 6 mph 

### 8 1 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t Tracke r 

### 8

. 3 9 19 2003 Fo rd Ta uru s 

### 8

. 3 1 0
7 2 0 0 1 Hyund a i A c c e n t 

### 7

. 7 1 1 20 2002 Dod ge Durang o 4WD 

### 6

. 9 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 Chevrol e t M e t r o 

### 5

. 7 1 3 16 2002 Chevrol e t Suburb an, 4WD 

### 5

. 1 1 4 2 4 2 0 0 1 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a 

### 2

. 9 1 5 17 2007 Fo rd Fo cu s 

### 1

. 6 1 6 4 2001 Chry sle r PT Crui se r 

### -2

. 9 1 7 8 2004 BM W 3 30i 

### -3

. 2 1 8
2 1 2 0 0 0 T o y o t a S i e n n a 

### -5

. 3 1 9 9 1999 Mitsubi shi Mirage 

### -7

. 3 2 0 15 2006 Chevrol e t Silverado, Ext. 

### -7

. 7 2 1 1 4 2 0 0 6 Chevrol e t C o b a l t 

### -9

. 1 2 2 12 2007 Chry sle r Jee p Ru bicon 

### -10.6 56-7 0 mph 

### 23 10 2001 Mitsubi shi Monte r o Sport 4WD 

### -11

. 1 2 4 1 3 2 0 0 3 Vol k s w a g e n J e t t a 

### no dat a 25



### 36

### The goal of the da ta ana l ysis was to identif y veh i cles which run lean and hot on E20. Table 20 includes the ranking for each of the six analysis catego r ies and the fin a l rank order summ ary. Vehicles identified as n on-adapti ng (those not using LFT at W O T) are listed at the top of th e table in ascending order of rank order su m

. The 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) was excluded from the final rank order table due to its unstable results throu ghout the data analysis ranges.

Table 20 CRC E-87-1 Final Rank Order Results

C RC # Vehic l e LFT @ WO T Aver age L a m b da E20 Po w e r to We i g h t Ra ti o R egi s t r a t i on Nu m b e r Aver a ge E20 Ca ta l y st In l e t T e m per at ur e De l t a La m b da E 0

- E20 Del t a Ca ta ly s t In l e t T e m p e r at ure E 0

- E2 0 F in al 6 200 2 N i s s an Fr onti e r N o 1 1 21 15 2 3 43 18 2000 For d Foc u s No 3 1 5 3 1 0 9 8 48 3 1999 For d Crow n Victor i a No 9 1 6 8 1 4 4 2 53 7 2001 Hy undai Ac cent No 1 3 5 1 7 1 6 11 53 25 2001 M a z da 626 No 2 3 7 1 6 2 7 1 56 24 2001 Vol k sw ag en J e tta Y e s 6 2 1 361 6 15 58 22 2000 H onda Acc o rd L X N o 1 4 1 2 2 1 8 8 5 59 19 200 3 For d T aurus Yes 1 2 1 0 5 8 1 7 10 62 14 2 006 Chev rol e t C obal t No 4 1 8 7 3 1 0 22 64 20 200 2 D odg e Dur a n g o 4W D No 2 1 4 1 4 1 9 5 12 66 5 2003 Ni ss an Al ti ma N o 20 20 9 4 11 4 68 23 2006 N i ssan Q uest No 5 2 3 2 3 9 1 7 68 1 2001 Chev r o l e t T r ac k e r N o 1 0 8 2 451 3 9 69 11 1995 H onda Ci v i c N o 21 9 4 20 12 6 72 12 Rubi con No 7 1 9 1 5 7 3 23 74 17 2007 For d Foc u s ? 1 7 1 7 6 12 23 16 91 4 2001 C h r y sl er PT Cr ui ser ? 2 4 1 1 1 0 1 7 1 5 17 94 2 20 01 C hev role t M e tr o ? 1 6 3 25 25 14 13 96

15 2006 Chev r o l e t Si l v erado, Ex tended C a b Yes 1 5 2 4 1 16 20 21 97 9 1999 M i tsubi shi M i r a g e Yes 1 1 6 22 22 18 20 99

10 2001 M i ts ubi shi M o nt ero Spor t 4W D Yes 1 9 4 18 13 24 24 102 8 2004 BM W 330i Yes 8 25 20 11 22 18 104 21 2000 T o y o t a Si enna Yes 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 1 9 19 108

16 2002 Chev r o l e t Su bur ban, 4W D Yes 1 8 2 1 1 9 2 3 2 1 14 116 13 2003 Vol k sw ag en J e tta N A 25 22 12 21 25 25 130



### CONCL US IONS
This prelim i n ary screening study looked at 25 late m odel vehicles selected by CRC a nd the U.S. Departm e nt of Energy and sold in th e US m a rket. The veh i cles were screened experim e ntally to determ ine which ones used learned fuel trim s to correct the open loop air-fuel ratios. Of these twenty-f ive vehicles th ir teen do no t appear to use learned fuel trim s, eight appear to use learned fuel trim s and the results of four vehicles were unclear. Of the 3.2 m ill ion vehicle registrations represented by these vehicles, 53% do not appear to use learned fuel trim s, 31% ap pear to use learn e d fuel trim s, and 16% of the results were u n clear.

37

### The suitab i lity of these vehicles for further te sting was ranked based on six equally weighted criteria. The top ten vehicles we re selected. Any vehicles that did use learned fuel trim were

rem oved fro m the top ten resulti ng in these vehicles in order:

1. 2002 Nissan Frontier (4cyl) 2. 2000 Ford Focus 3. 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 4. 2001 Hyundai Accent 5. 2001 Mazda 626 (4cyl) 6. 2000 Honda Accord LX (4 cyl) 7. 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 8. 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 9. 2003 Nissan Altim a (4cyl) 10. 2006 Nissan Quest

One of the vehicles screened was the 2001 Hyunda i Accent. This is the only vehicle that dem onstrated catalyst perform a nce degradation in th e Orb ita l study in Australia that is a l so available in the US. When it was evaluated by Orbital the Hyundai control system did not

com p ensate for the extra oxygen introduced by the ethanol in the fuel. This was demonstrated by the enlean m e nt of the open l oop air-fuel m i xture when operated on ethanol blended fuel and an increase in catalyst temperature. This ve hicle was durability tested for 80,000 km on E0 and E20 using the AMA drive cycle as defined in European Counc il directive 98/69/EC. The

em issions results are sho w n below.

38

### Figure 5, Hyundai Accen t Em issions Results Tak e n from the Orbital stud y 9



### The US Hyu ndai tested in this study also exhibi ted increases in catalyst temperature and reduced fuel enrichm e nt when operated on E20. This dem onstrated that the em issions issues found in Australia m a y also be found in the US if vehicles are operat ed for extended durations on

m i d-level ethanol blends.

This study has found that of the 25 v e hicles tested , 13, including the Hyundai, have the potential to have their em issions control system s da m a g e d by extended operation on m i d-level ethanol blends. Eight of the vehicles tested appear no t to have this potential problem a nd for four vehicles the results are u n clear.

9 P1 28 . Orb ital Eng i n e C o m p an y, “Mark e t B a rriers to t h e Up tak e of Biofuels Stud y Testin g G a so lin e Co n t ain i n g 20 % Et ha n o l ( E 2 0 ),” P h ase 2 B Fi nal Rep o r t t o t h e De pa rt m e nt of t h e En vi r o nm ent an d Heri t a ge , M a y 20 0 4

.



### 39

### APPE NDI X A

TRC I NC. FACILITI ES AND E Q UIPMENT
Chassis Dynamometer Laboratory F a cility and E quipment:
Emissions Chassis Dynamometer: AVL 48” R o ll Dual Axle 2 W D/4 W D Dyna m o m e ter Maxim u m I n ertia Sim u lation: 12,000 lbs. in AWD 8,000 lbs. in 2WD mode Maxim u m Vehicle Speed: 125 MP H Repeat Tolerance of Inertia and Road Sim u lation: ≤ 1% 4 W D wheelbase adjustm e nt range: 82 -185 in (2100-4700 mm) Maxim u m v e hicle wheel width: 107 in (2725mm) Maxim u m v e hicle Axle Weight: 10, 000 lbs. per axle
Emissions Dynamometer Test Ch amber: Maxim u m Tem p erature: 125 ° F Minim u m Tem p erature (during driving): 20 ° F Nom i nal Temperature w ith Hum i dity Control: 7 5 ° F Hu m i dity Control: 35% to 75% RH ±5%RH Cha m ber Ceiling Clearance Height: 9 Feet Cha m ber Depth: 40 Feet Cha m ber Width: 28 Feet Vehicle Cooling Fan Max Airspeed at vehicle: 32 m ph at 0.5 m 2 

### discharge
Emissions Constant Volume Sampler (CVS): Manufacturer: Rosem o u n t Analytical Dilution Tunnel: 12” D i am eter Cyclonic Separator: No No m i nal Flow Rate: 600 SCFM Calibration Method: Lam i nar Flow Elem ent (LFE) Sa m p le System : Continuous Dilute or Tedlar Bag Method
Analyz er Bench (Dilut e /Bag): Analyzers: Horiba 200 series AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO 2 

### : 0-2 & 4 % AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO (Low): 0-25, 50, 250 pp m AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO (High): 0-1000, 3000, 10000 pp m CLA-220 Chem ilu m i nescent NOx Analyzer: 0-25, 50, 100 pp m FIA-220 Flam e Ionization Detector (T HC): 0-10, 30, 100, 300, 1000 pp mC GFA-220 CH4 Gas Chro m a tography Analyzer: 0-25 ppm

A-1

### Additional Support Equipment

Lam bda data for this program were collect ed using UEGO sensors and an AFR-1000 Air Fuel Ratio Module from ECM Motorsports.

TRC Inc. c o llec t ed DLC data usin g an Auto Enginuity Enhanced O D B-II sc an tool. This tool is capable of collecting data fro m all ve hicle m a kes and m odels offered for sa le in the United Sta t e s via th e OBD-II port.

All test fuel was stored and dispensed fro m TR C Inc.’s temperatu r e con t rolled drum storage building during the program

. This building is located ad jacent to th e TRC Inc. Emission s Laboratory and includes s m all volu m e blending and weighing equipm ent, fuel transfer pum p s and hazardous m a terials storage. Tw o of the 10 pum ps and dispensing lines are designed for transfer and dispensing of high concentration alcohol fuels.

A-2

### APPE NDI X B

AIR/FUE L RATIO DATA

B-12 0 0 1 Chev rolet Tra cke r ( CRC #1 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 M i l e s pe r H ourLambda (NormalizedAir Fuel Ratio)

8644= E0 8653= E10 8680= E15 8678= E20

20 01 Che v r o let Metro ( CRC#2 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M iles per Ho u rLambda (NormalizedAir/Fuel Ratio)

8552=E0 8575=E10 8558=E15 8572=E20



### B-21999 F o r d Cr ow n V i c t o r i a ( CRC #3)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r H ourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

8548=E 0 8582=E 1 0 8579=E 1 5 8588=E 2 0

20 01 Chr y s l e r PT Cruise r ( CRC# 4)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r H ourLambda(NormalizedAir FuelRatio)

8589= E0 8598= E10 8610= E15 8595= E20



### B-32 0 0 3 N i s s a n A l t i m a (CRC#5 )

0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8

1 1. 2 1. 4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i le s per HourLambda(NormalizedAirFuelRatio)

86 23 =E 0 86 38 =E 10 86 43 =E 15 86 32 =E 20

2 0 02 Nis san Fr on t i er Tr uck (CRC #6)

0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8

1 1. 2 1. 4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 M i l es per Ho urLambda(NormalizedAirFuelRatio)

85 49 =E 0 85 81 =E 10 85 86 =E 15 85 96 =E 20



### B-42 001 Hy unda i A c c e nt (CRC#7 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

8 604 =E0 8 637 =E1 0 8 621 =E1 5 8 631 =E2 0

200 4 B M W 3 30i ( C RC #8 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

88 19 =E0 88 24 =E10 88 21 =E15 88 20 =E20



### B-519 99 M i tsubishi M i rage (C R C #9)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

87 97 =E0 88 16 =E1 0 88 06 =E1 5 88 15 =E2 0

20 01 M i tsubishi M o nt ero S port (C R C #10 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

87 21 =E0 87 29 =E10 87 40 =E15 87 72 =E20



### B-6199 5 H onda C i v i c D X , LX (C R C #11 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

85 53 =E0 85 68 =E10 85 85 =E15 85 57 =E20

2007 J eep R u bicon ( C R C # 12)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

87 83 =E0 88 11 =E1 0 88 04 =E1 5 88 14 =E2 0



### B-7200 3 Volks w a g en Je t t a ( CRC#1 3 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r H ourLambda(NormalizedAir FuelRatio)

87 84=E0 87 88=E10 88 05=E15 87 93=E20

20 06 Che v rolet Coba lt, 4 Door (CRC#14 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r H ourLambda(NormalizedAir FuelRatio)

8790= E0 8807= E10 8802= E15 8791= E20



### B-82 006 Chev r o let Silv erado E x tende d C a b, ( C R C # 15)

0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8

1 1. 2 1. 4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M ile s pe r Ho urLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

85 94 =E0 85 84 =E1 0 85 70 =E1 5 85 87 =E2 0

200 2 Chev rol e t S uburban 4 W D, (CRC#1 6)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

86 79 =E0 87 13 =E10 87 18 =E15 87 28 =E20



### B-9200 7 Ford Focus (C RC #1 7)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

87 87 =E0 88 08 =E10 88 03 =E15 88 13 =E20

200 0 Ford Focus (C RC #1 8)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

86 02 =E0 86 20 =E1 0 86 06 =E1 5 86 27 =E2 0



### B-102 003 Ford Ta urus ( C R C # 19)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

87 46 =E0 87 79 =E15 87 73 =E10 87 51 =E20

20 02 Do dge Dura ngo 4W D (CRC#20 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

85 44 = E 0 85 93 = E 10 85 83 = E 15 85 90 = E 20



### B-11200 0 Toy o ta Sienna (C RC #2 1)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

87 27 =E0 87 33 =E1 0 87 67 =E1 5 87 50 =E2 0

2000 A ccord LX (C RC #2 2)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

85 51 = E 0 85 64 = E 10 85 71 = E 15 85 76 = E 20



### B-1220 06 Niss an Ques t ( CRC#2 3 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M iles per H o urLambda(NormalizedAirFuelRatio)

86 34=E 0 85 97=E 1 0 85 92=E 1 5 85 80=E 2 0

200 1 Volks w age n Jett a (C R C #24 )

0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8

1 1. 2

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M ile s pe r Ho urLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

86 40 =E0 86 57 =E1 0 86 47 =E1 5 86 42 =E2 0



### B-13200 1 M a z d a 626 (C R C #25 )

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per HourLambda(Normalized AirFuelRatio)

86 35 =E 0 86 39 =E 1 0 87 14 =E 1 5 86 58 =E 2 0



### B-14

### APPE NDI X C

TEMPERATURE DATA

C-12 0 0 1 Chev role t Tra c k e r ( CRC# 1 )

30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 M i l e s p e r HourTemperature C

8 644 = E 0 8 653 = E 10 8 680 = E 15 8 678 = E 20

20 01 Che v r o let Metro ( CRC#2 )

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

8552 =E0 8575 =E10 8558 =E15 8572 =E20



### C-2199 9 For d Cr ow n V i c t or ia (CRC#3)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

8548= E0 8582= E10 8579= E15 8588= E20

20 01 Chr y s l e r PT Cruise r ( CRC# 4)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

8589 =E0 8598 =E10 8610 =E15 8595 =E20



### C-32 003 Ni ss an A l t i ma ( C RC#5 )

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8623=E 0 8638=E 1 0 8643=E 1 5 8632=E 2 0

20 02 Ni ssan Fr ont i e r T r u ck ( CRC #6)

30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 M i le s pe r H ourTemperature C

8549=E0 8581=E10 8586=E15 8596=E20



### C-4200 1 Hy unda i A c c e nt (CRC#7)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

860 4=E0 863 7=E10 862 1=E15 863 1=E20

20 04 BM W 330 i ( CRC #8)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8819=E 0 8824=E 1 0 8821=E 1 5 8820=E 2 0



### C-5199 9 M i t s u b i s h i M i ra ge ( CRC #9)

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8797= E0 8816= E10 8806= E15 8815= E20

200 1 M i t s u b i s h i M o nt er o Spo r t (C RC #10)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8721=E 0 8729=E 1 0 8740=E 1 5 8772=E 2 0



### C-61 995 Ho nd a Ci v i c DX , LX ( C R C #1 1)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8553=E 0 8568=E 1 0 8585=E 1 5 8557=E 2 0

2007 Jeep R ubicon ( C R C # 1 2 )

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M ile s per HourTemperature C

8783=E0 8811=E10 8804=E15 8814=E20



### C-7200 3 V o l ksw age n Jet t a (C RC #13)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8784=E 0 8788=E 1 0 8805=E 1 5 8793=E 2 0

2 006 C h ev r o l e t Cob a l t , 4 Doo r ( CRC #14 )

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8790=E0 8807=E10 8802=E15 8791=E20



### C-820 06 Che v r o l e t Si l v e r a do Extende d Ca b, (CR C # 1 5 )

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

8594= E0 8584= E10 8570= E15 8587= E20

2 002 Che v rolet Suburba n 4W D, (C RC# 16)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

867 9=E0 871 3=E10 871 8=E15 872 8=E20



### C-92 0 0 7 Ford Foc us (CRC#1 7 )

30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es per Ho urTemperature C

87 87= E 0 88 08= E 1 0 88 03= E 1 5 88 13= E 2 0

200 0 Ford Focus (C RC# 18)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

8602= E0 8620= E10 8606= E15 8627= E20



### C-10200 3 For d T a ur us ( CRC#1 9 )

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

8746=E0 8779=E15 8773=E10 8751=E20

200 2 Dodge Dur a ngo 4 W D ( CRC# 20)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l e s pe r Ho urTemperature C

8544= E0 8593= E10 8583= E15 8590= E20



### C-11200 0 T o y o t a Si enn a (C RC #21)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8727=E 0 8733=E 1 0 8767=E 1 5 8750=E 2 0

200 0 A cco rd L X ( CRC #22)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i l es p e r H o urTemperature C

8551=E 0 8564=E 1 0 8571=E 1 5 8576=E 2 0



### C-1220 0 6 Niss a n Q u es t ( CRC# 23 )

30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i le s per H ourTemperature C

863 4= E0 859 7= E1 0 859 2= E1 5 858 0= E2 0

2001 Volksw age n Jet t a ( C RC #24)

30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les p e r H o u rTemperature C

8 640=E0 8 657=E10 8 647=E15 8 642=E20



### C-13200 1 M a z d a 62 6 ( C R C # 25)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 M i les per Ho urTemperature C

86 35 = E 0 86 39 = E 10 87 14 = E 15 86 58 = E 20



### C-14